Adi wrote: In the United States, in short, it has been conclusively proven again and again that there is no rational basis for denying same-sex couples the right to marry.

I object to the use of the term 'rational' in this context.

I guess you didn't' read the lengthy post I put up. It's being used in a specific context, which is:

Rational basis review is a test used in some contexts to determine a law's constitutionality. To pass rational basis review, the challenged law must be rationally related to a legitimate government interest. Rational basis is the most lenient form of judicial review, as both strict scrutiny and intermediate scrutiny are considered more stringent. Rational basis review is generally used when in cases where no fundamental rights or suspect classifications are at issue.

Not exclusively so and certainly not only so, as has been proved in the above post and by other postings in this thread.

Well, I'm afraid I do not concur. I admit, I might be quite mistaken, and I agree that others may hold completely different views to my own. But the issue is, as regards the recognition of 'gay marriage', that I am being compelled to agree. It means that the society of which I am part, no longer recognizes my right to dissent. It is not enough for me to live and let live anymore; I am required to live and applaud. And I'm not going to do that.

No should you, though your notion you are being compelled to do anything is specious at best. And your right of dissent is not only recognized it is (in the US) guaranteed. We have an adversarial legal system in which all dissent is recognized and in this case the dissenters arguments were found to be almost wholly without any merit at all. Nevertheless, they were and are free to present them.

Despite the calls for secular ethics, the west is still largely underpinned by Christian values in many ways. Homosexuals in general want to reproduce similar models of heteronormative marriage and child rearing for themselves. Ironically, despite the common contempt for Christianity nowadays, these models of sacred state sanctioned unions are largely a product of Christian values.

Actually monogomous marriage comes from pagan Rome so does the ceremony (Jewish ceremonies are different): the ring, the veil, lifting the bride over the threshold - all pagan Roman. Also in pagan Rome we have the example of the nuclear family, only in pagan Rome society was normally bisexual.

Christianity to distance itself from Judaism took up the culture and rituals of pagan Rome. Because the classics are no longer taught as part of the school curriculum the vast majority are unaware of such things.

So Western monogomous marriage and the nuclear family all derive from bisexual pagan Rome.gasshoRory

The assumptive terms used to describe other cultures which do not hold similar values and aspirations include "traditional", "conservative" or even "backwards".

This is a form of cultural chauvinism that goes unrecognized. Most of Japan, a law abiding and quite civilized nation, must also be 'irrational' because they have no interest in allowing homosexual marriages.

This is an aspect of hard line liberal ideology that I feel uncomfortable with. Everyone -- even foreign nations -- is compelled to adopt their values or, at the very least, are expected to eventually 'progress' towards such ideals. It effectively places liberal intellectuals in a position of being custodians to the apex of humanistic and freedom-providing values. There is a political element there that should be recognized: there are many individuals who have vested career interests in pushing liberal reforms as it benefits them while cutting out the competition.

It means that the society of which I am part, no longer recognizes my right to dissent.

If some people had their way (some on this forum apparently), your disagreement would have you classified as mentally ill, and therefore your opinions would be rendered invalid.

Maybe I missed it, but I don't think there's been any posts yet in this discussion from anyone in a legal gay marriage.

So, pardon the interruption of the abstractness of this conversation so I can speak as someone in that situation...

Last year in June, we drove from our home in Alabama to Binghamton, New York to get legally married after 27 years of being together. A big part in the choice of that particular place is its close proximity to Padma Samye Ling (my teachers' main center), which I had never visited until then.

We didn't know it would have any ramifications over and beyond the protections we had through legal instruments like "powers of attorney" since we live in the non-legal state of Alabama, but even before our first official anniversary there are real legal benefits from the Federal level that have started.

Legal marriage has already made our lives objectively and tangibly easier even in a non-legal state, and I thank all you supporters dearly for the relative peace of mind that has come from it.

rory wrote:So Western monogomous marriage and the nuclear family all derive from bisexual pagan Rome.gasshoRory

That's not monogamy as we understand it (keeping sex within marriage). The Romans were free within certain social constraints to have sex with who[m]ever they wanted even while married.

Monogamy as we understand it is keeping sex within a single legally binding marriage arrangement.

Actually the Roman ideal was to be chaste casta, castus in marriage. To be monogomous with one partner. Where do you think the Christians got this idea from: the polygmous Judeans? You need to fill in your intellectual vacuum concerning Classical history and culture.

rory wrote:Actually the Roman ideal was to be chaste casta, castus in marriage. To be monogomous with one partner. Where do you think the Christians got this idea from: the polygmous Judeans? You need to fill in your intellectual vacuum concerning Classical history and culture.

A married master could bed his slave without any issues.

That's not monogamy as it is understood now or in the Christian developments.

Monogamy as we understand it is keeping sex within a single legally binding marriage arrangement.

That is only for the proletarian and middle classes and is part of the the public veneer the upper classes (ruling, financial, elites, etc.) employ to give the illusion of caring about other people and respecting "morality". In actuality those upper classes and ancient Rome's elites differ only in the language spoken and the most fortunate arrival in modern times of penicillin.

rory wrote:Actually the Roman ideal was to be chaste casta, castus in marriage. To be monogomous with one partner. Where do you think the Christians got this idea from: the polygmous Judeans? You need to fill in your intellectual vacuum concerning Classical history and culture.

A married master could bed his slave without any issues.

That's not monogamy as it is understood now or in the Christian developments.

I told you the ancient Roman ideal was a husband and wife to be chaste, to know only one another sexually. Having sex with a slave, friend, eunuch meant you weren't chaste in your marriage. But most don't live up to the ideal. The Romans had another ideal the univir that is a married woman who only had sex with her husband and never married again when widowed. They were honoured. But there were very few aristocratic univiri as women liked to marry again or have sex outside of marriage: with gladiators, other women, whomever.

jeeprs, "Well, I'm afraid I do not concur. I admit, I might be quite mistaken, and I agree that others may hold completely different views to my own. But the issue is, as regards the recognition of 'gay marriage', that I am being compelled to agree. It means that the society of which I am part, no longer recognizes my right to dissent. It is not enough for me to live and let live anymore; I am required to live and applaud. And I'm not going to do that"Spot on, I totally agree with you!

Kunzang wrote:Maybe I missed it, but I don't think there's been any posts yet in this discussion from anyone in a legal gay marriage.

So, pardon the interruption of the abstractness of this conversation so I can speak as someone in that situation...

Last year in June, we drove from our home in Alabama to Binghamton, New York to get legally married after 27 years of being together. A big part in the choice of that particular place is its close proximity to Padma Samye Ling (my teachers' main center), which I had never visited until then.

We didn't know it would have any ramifications over and beyond the protections we had through legal instruments like "powers of attorney" since we live in the non-legal state of Alabama, but even before our first official anniversary there are real legal benefits from the Federal level that have started. Legal marriage has already made our lives objectively and tangibly easier even in a non-legal state, and I thank all you supporters dearly for the relative peace of mind that has come from it.

Heartiest congratulations Kunzang to you both..I find myself intrigued to see if jeeprs, greentara or Indrajala have anything to say to you ?

Kunzang wrote:Maybe I missed it, but I don't think there's been any posts yet in this discussion from anyone in a legal gay marriage.

So, pardon the interruption of the abstractness of this conversation so I can speak as someone in that situation...

Last year in June, we drove from our home in Alabama to Binghamton, New York to get legally married after 27 years of being together. A big part in the choice of that particular place is its close proximity to Padma Samye Ling (my teachers' main center), which I had never visited until then.

We didn't know it would have any ramifications over and beyond the protections we had through legal instruments like "powers of attorney" since we live in the non-legal state of Alabama, but even before our first official anniversary there are real legal benefits from the Federal level that have started. Legal marriage has already made our lives objectively and tangibly easier even in a non-legal state, and I thank all you supporters dearly for the relative peace of mind that has come from it.

Heartiest congratulations Kunzang to you both..I find myself intrigued to see if jeeprs, greentara or Indrajala have anything to say to you ?

Wishing you and your spouse every happiness and many years Kunzang! may I be so fortunate to find a wonderful girl one day:)with gasshoRory

greentara wrote:jeeprs, "Well, I'm afraid I do not concur. I admit, I might be quite mistaken, and I agree that others may hold completely different views to my own. But the issue is, as regards the recognition of 'gay marriage', that I am being compelled to agree. It means that the society of which I am part, no longer recognizes my right to dissent. It is not enough for me to live and let live anymore; I am required to live and applaud. And I'm not going to do that"Spot on, I totally agree with you!

The problem is you never just lived and let live. The anti-marriage equality folks argue for control over how gay folks live their lives. Gay marriage does nothing to impinge on your rights. Except if you think you have a right to tell other consenting adults how they should live.

Everyone talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it - Mark Twain.

Kunzang wrote:Maybe I missed it, but I don't think there's been any posts yet in this discussion from anyone in a legal gay marriage.

So, pardon the interruption of the abstractness of this conversation so I can speak as someone in that situation...

Last year in June, we drove from our home in Alabama to Binghamton, New York to get legally married after 27 years of being together. A big part in the choice of that particular place is its close proximity to Padma Samye Ling (my teachers' main center), which I had never visited until then.

We didn't know it would have any ramifications over and beyond the protections we had through legal instruments like "powers of attorney" since we live in the non-legal state of Alabama, but even before our first official anniversary there are real legal benefits from the Federal level that have started. Legal marriage has already made our lives objectively and tangibly easier even in a non-legal state, and I thank all you supporters dearly for the relative peace of mind that has come from it.

Heartiest congratulations Kunzang to you both..I find myself intrigued to see if jeeprs, greentara or Indrajala have anything to say to you ?

Wishing you and your spouse every happiness and many years Kunzang! may I be so fortunate to find a wonderful girl one day:)with gasshoRory

Knotty Veneer wrote:The problem is you never just lived and let live. The anti-marriage equality folks argue for control over how gay folks live their lives. Gay marriage does nothing to impinge on your rights. Except if you think you have a right to tell other consenting adults how they should live.

It isn't so much about infringing on heterosexual rights, but simply directing society in what is for some people an undesirable direction.

Dear Rory, the archaeological and anthropological data is starting to point to the fact that monogamy (and patrilineality) among Eurasians derives from the Proto-Indo-Europeans, and potentially Proto-Indo-Hittites. Indian polygamy seems to date back only to the Indo-Aryans.

Knotty Veneer wrote:The problem is you never just lived and let live. The anti-marriage equality folks argue for control over how gay folks live their lives. Gay marriage does nothing to impinge on your rights. Except if you think you have a right to tell other consenting adults how they should live.

It isn't so much about infringing on heterosexual rights, but simply directing society in what is for some people an undesirable direction.

Maybe some people should mind their own freakin' business.

Everyone talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it - Mark Twain.

Knotty Veneer wrote:Maybe some people should mind their own freakin' business.

By that logic we shouldn't halt all manner of private albeit questionable activities, like narcotics consumption for example, because it is none of our business what adults do in the privacy of their own homes.

Some argue that narcotics damage society, hence must be proscribed. Well, some argue gay marriage will damage society, too.